Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[randomrogue]

How about anyone who quotes the bible? Someone who interprets the bible as fact?

I just see this as some kind of religious pathology.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Jesus said "the only way to the Father is through Me". Draw your own conclusions.

No, some guy who lived decades after Jesus died claimed that he said that, and then wrote it down, and some other guys who also never knew Jesus wrote down some similar claims, and then they were passed around, and copied, and miscopied, and translated, and mistranslated, and then put into a big book that a bunch of powerful people realized they could use to control all of the other people through a combination of fear, guilt, false hope and intimidation.

And that brainwashing based on a book of dubious origins and with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, was passed down from generation to generation, eventually brainwashing your parents or other authority figures you trust into believing it, and then they programmed you.

 

[Ausm]

Did you go off your meds?

I'm not sure there are any medicines which could cure him....

 

[randomrogue]

The first books were written a dozen or two dozen years after jesus's death - maybe as long as 35 years. The last books were written a little over a hundred years after his death.

To make matters even worse nobody who wrote the bible even met jesus.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, some guy who lived decades after Jesus died claimed that he said that, and then wrote it down, and some other guys who also never knew Jesus wrote down some similar claims, and then they were passed around, and copied, and miscopied, and translated, and mistranslated, and then put into a big book that a bunch of powerful people realized they could use to control all of the other people through a combination of fear, guilt, false hope and intimidation.

And that brainwashing based on a book of dubious origins and with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, was passed down from generation to generation, eventually brainwashing your parents or other authority figures you trust into believing it, and then they programmed you.

You sound very bitter.

No amount of pounding your fist on the table and screaming at the top of your voice: "the Bible's a false, mythological book!!" is going to change anything, particularly since you have provided absolutely nothing more than speculation, "dicey-ness".

I want to see some evidence that this entire book is false, something hard, irrefutable, since you did say, and I have a quote from you saying its a book of myths.

Since you guys are so hard up on seeing evidence, present yours.

 

[randomrogue]

At my University the bible was studied in Mythology courses. Mostly the old testament but the new testament was included as well.

If you read the new testament you'll notice that there are many inconsistencies as well as plagarism from other parts of the bible. For a book that's supposed to be true and supposed to be from people who met jesus there sure is a lot of copying going on. Most likely the bible was written in committee and was used purely as a tool for control and wealth accumulation. Early Christians didn't need a bible since they all thought that Jesus was going to come back and save them. When that didn't happen and those people died they needed a way to keep going so they started putting together a bible in the 2nd and 3rd centuries from texts that were generally accepted by church leaders.

 

[OCNewbie]

I want to see some evidence that this entire book is false, something hard, irrefutable, since you did say, and I have a quote from you saying its a book of myths.

That's not how the burden of proof works. The Bible has established itself as something more than just a book, and in doing so, it must provide evidence to substantiate such claims.

Prove that The Chronicles of Narnia isn't real.

 

[zsdersw]

You sound very bitter.

No amount of pounding your fist on the table and screaming at the top of your voice: "the Bible's a false, mythological book!!" is going to change anything, particularly since you have provided absolutely nothing more than speculation, "dicey-ness".

I want to see some evidence that this entire book is false, something hard, irrefutable, since you did say, and I have a quote from you saying its a book of myths.

Since you guys are so hard up on seeing evidence, present yours.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Bible makes some pretty extraordinary claims.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You sound very bitter.

And you sound very stupid.

I'm okay with what I got.

"Prove that the book is false"? How about you prove that the entire universe wasn't sneezed out of the nostril of the Great Green Arkleseizure?

Sorry, I know the truth hurts. But the truth is that nobody really knows what Jesus said -- you've been brainwashed into believing as "fact" a bunch of stories written by people who never even knew Jesus. People who saw in him a way to gain control over the uneducated and the gullible -- and were very good at it.

 

[OCNewbie]

Early Christians didn't need a bible since they all thought that Jesus was going to come back and save them. When that didn't happen and those people died they needed a way to keep going so they started putting together a bible in the 2nd and 3rd centuries from texts that were generally accepted by church leaders.

I think the vast majority of "early Christians" didn't even know how to read. I'm not sure at what point in history being able to read was fairly common, but I'm pretty certain it was centuries after the Bible's creation.

 

[randomrogue]

Matthew starts with the immaculate conception. So before we start with anything lets determine if that's real or not.

Prove that's possible. If you can prove that's possible then I'll start disproving other parts of the bible.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Prove that's possible. If you can prove that's possible then I'll start disproving other parts of the bible.

<irrationality>
Well, obviously it's possible. It happened! It says so right there in the bible!

Why don't you prove it didn't happen!
</irrationality>

 

[randomrogue]

I think the vast majority of "early Christians" didn't even know how to read. I'm not sure at what point in history being able to read was fairly common, but I'm pretty certain it was centuries after the Bible's creation.

I'm not sure that's a fair argument since as I understand it the bible was required to be written in certain languages. First it was in Greek until Latin, and it wasn't until Martin Luther that it started to get translated into local languages. Populations were basically taught by their church and pastor and it was he who read to them and taught them what to think.

 

[OCNewbie]

I'm not sure that's a fair argument since as I understand it the bible was required to be written in certain languages. First it was in Greek until Latin, and it wasn't until Martin Luther that it started to get translated into local languages. Populations were basically taught by their church and pastor and it was he who read to them and taught them what to think.

Exactly. They couldn't read the Bible themselves and come to their own conclusions about it's validity, they had to rely on someone else to pick and choose which parts of it they were to learn about.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, some guy who lived decades after Jesus died claimed that he said that, and then wrote it down, and some other guys who also never knew Jesus wrote down some similar claims, and then they were passed around, and copied, and miscopied, and translated, and mistranslated, and then put into a big book that a bunch of powerful people realized they could use to control all of the other people through a combination of fear, guilt, false hope and intimidation.

That's certainly an interesting perspective. On what factual basis do you derive such a conclusion?

 

[Retro Rob]

And you sound very stupid.

I'm okay with what I got.

"Prove that the book is false"? How about you prove that the entire universe wasn't sneezed out of the nostril of the Great Green Arkleseizure?

Sorry, I know the truth hurts. But the truth is that nobody really knows what Jesus said -- you've been brainwashed into believing as "fact" a bunch of stories written by people who never even knew Jesus.

In others words, all you have is opinion, speculation, nothing solid.

I know how the burden of proof works. However, you read something that sounds silly to you, with no sufficient evidence, you don't believe it and hold that position. Once you assert or even insinuate its false, you have a burned to satisfy.

You can't say I committed murder just because you can't prove I didn't, even if I was at the murder scene. Insufficent evident doesn't suppose guilt.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

On what factual basis do you derive such a conclusion?

Give me a break. The entire history of Christianity is just one episode after another of carrots and sticks.

 

[OCNewbie]

In others words, all you have is opinion, speculation, nothing solid.

I know how the burden of proof works. However, you read something that sounds silly to you, with no sufficient evidence, you don't believe it and hold that position. Once you assert or even insinuate its false, you have a burned to satisfy.

You can't say I committed murder just because you can't prove I didn't, even if I was at the murder scene. Insufficent evident doesn't suppose guilt.

The source that is presenting a claim is the source that is responsible for supporting that claim with evidence. The Bible has presented many claims, without any evidence. Nobody can say with absolute confidence that the things in the Bible did NOT happen, but we can certainly say there is essentially no evidence to support the things that supposedly happened.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's certainly an interesting perspective. On what factual basis do you derive such a conclusion?

Opponents of the Bible don't ever provide evidence. All they have is speculation, fear of believing, and even sometimes outright denials.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In others words, all you have is opinion, speculation, nothing solid.

I don't need to prove that things don't exist. You need to prove that they do.

I know how the burden of proof works.

Either you don't, or you're lying.

Since you've not demonstrated much in the way of critical reasoning skills in this thread, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former.

However, you read something that sounds silly to you, with no sufficient evidence, you don't believe it and hold that position. Once you assert or even insinuate its false, you have a burned to satisfy.

This is beyond stupid. I could say the same thing about the Lord of the Rings. How about you prove that none of that ever happened?

You can't say I committed murder just because you can't prove I didn't, even if I was at the murder scene. Insufficent evident doesn't suppose guilt.

Saying you committed a murder is a positive assertion. I'd be saying something happened. Therefore, the onus of proof is on me -- I have to provide evidence that you committed murder. You do not have to prove that you didn't murder anyone -- that is the default state.

Saying that the supernatural stories in your bible are true is a positive assertion. You're saying something happened. Therefore, the onus of proof is on you -- you have to provide evidence that the bible is true. I do not have to prove that it is false, any more than you have to prove that Greek mythology is false.

Of course, you're too stupid to understand this sort of simple reasoning, so I guess I'm just writing it for fun. Except it's not fun any more, it's just a frustrating waste of time, so welcome to my ignore list.

 

[randomrogue]

In others words, all you have is opinion, speculation, nothing solid.

I know how the burden of proof works. However, you read something that sounds silly to you, with no sufficient evidence, you don't believe it and hold that position. Once you assert or even insinuate its false, you have a burned to satisfy.

You can't say I committed murder just because you can't prove I didn't, even if I was at the murder scene. Insufficent evident doesn't suppose guilt.

You don't know what the burden of proof is. You need to be able to provide sufficient evidence to back up your position. You can't just make things up.

Do you believe that Star Wars Ep I is real? If I was to claim that the script for that movie is real would you accept that? There really was a boy who was immaculately conceived to fulfill the prophecy and bring balance to the force. You're with me right? Jesus was real. Anakin Skywalker was real. We're good right? No need for any kind of proof. I said so. You said so. Everyone's happy? The problem is that I don't believe that and I think someone who does is an idiot. You can't just make shit up and call it real. You have to prove it.

 

[OCNewbie]

All they have is speculation, fear of believing, and even sometimes outright denials.

How about fear of NOT believing? People don't like change, especially drastic change like radically changing their perspectives about religion, afterlife, and essentially all reality. For one to seriously consider the validity of the claims against their faith, that would require them to give serious consideration to the possibility that the entirety of their faith is based upon a complete fabrication. I understand the fear and uncertainty, and other emotions involved in taking the first step down that path.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you believe that Star Wars Ep I is real? If I was to claim that the script for that movie is real would you accept that? There really was a boy who was immaculately conceived to fulfill the prophecy and bring balance to the force. You're with me right? Jesus was real. Anakin Skywalker was real. We're good right? No need for any kind of proof. I said so. You said so. Everyone's happy? The problem is that I don't believe that and I think someone who does is an idiot. You can't just make shit up and call it real. You have to prove it.

You're wasting your time with this guy. Months ago I spent hours patiently trying to explain these same issues, and even defended him from criticism, because I thought he was actually interested in reasonable discussion of these issues.

He isn't. All I've gotten from my efforts is the same guy lying about my positions and repeating the same illogical bullshit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Give me a break. The entire history of Christianity is just one episode after another of carrots and sticks.

No...I won't give you a break. You've spent a good deal of time in this thread talking about the irrationality of others...while being totally oblivious to your own. Please answer the question.

 

[Retro Rob]

You don't know what the burden of proof is. You need to be able to provide sufficient evidence to back up your position. You can't just make things up.

Yes, you are correct. However, if I can't back it up for instance, you won't believe it. That's fine.

But if you were to say "hey, that didn't happen" then I would natrually ask how do you know that.

That's what I mean. I never meant to say that you have to prove ME wrong, however, if you make a claim (Rob didn't do xyz, or xyz didn't happen -- the book is lying) then you'd have to support your position.

That's all I meant.